Oral Gift Hiba must be proved by declaration, acceptance and possession; better title sustained possession decree.

A claim of oral gift/Hiba under Sunni personal law requires proof of declaration by the donor, acceptance by the donee, and delivery of possession, and the appellant failed to establish those elements with consistent evidence. The plea was raised belatedly, the alleged witnesses to the gift were not identified, and the record did not show delivery of possession. On possession, the respondent could rely on better entitlement to possession despite unregistered transaction documents, as the owner did not object to recovery of possession and the existing record supported the decree. The decree for possession and mesne profits was therefore maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant proved a valid oral gift/Hiba of the suit property in his favour by his brother; (ii) Whether the respondent was entitled to possession on the basis of the unregistered transaction documents and better title to possession.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant proved a valid oral gift/Hiba of the suit property in his favour by his brother.

Analysis: A valid gift under Sunni personal law requires declaration by the donor, acceptance by the donee, and delivery of possession. The plea of oral gift was raised only in the written statement and was not supported by any consistent prior stand. The appellant also failed to identify the persons allegedly present at the time of the gift, and his evidence did not establish delivery of possession or the circumstances of the alleged Hibba.

Conclusion: The appellant failed to prove a valid oral gift/Hiba.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondent was entitled to possession on the basis of the unregistered transaction documents and better title to possession.

Analysis: The documents relied upon by the respondent were unregistered, and the reasoning based on them for transfer of title was questioned. Even so, the respondent could maintain the suit for possession as the person acting for the owner, who did not object to recovery of possession, and the respondent had a better title to possession than the appellant. The appellate court also exercised power to decide the matter on the existing record and upheld the decree for possession and mesne profits.

Conclusion: The respondent was entitled to possession and the decree for possession and mesne profits was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was found to be without merit and the decree in favour of the respondent was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim of oral gift must be proved by clear evidence of declaration, acceptance, and delivery of possession, and a party with better entitlement to possession may succeed even where the transaction documents are not the basis of title.

---